On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Benjamin Kaplan <benjamin.kap...@case.edu> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Mike Patterson > <mikepatterso...@gmail.com> wrote: >> In my Python class the other day, the professor was going over >> decorators and he briefly mentioned that there had been this huge >> debate about the syntax and using the @ sign to signify decorators. >> >> I read about the alternative forms proposed here (http:// >> www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0318/#syntax-alternatives). >> >> Has anyone thought about just using dec to declare a decorator? >> >> For example: >> dec dec2 >> dec dec1 >> def func(arg1, arg2, ...): >> pass >> -- > > dec and def look too similar. It would get confusing. Also, it > wouldn't be immediately obvious that the line is associated with the > function declaration below. The whole point in the decorators is that > it makes it easier to tell that the function is being wrapped.
Also "dec" would then have to become a keyword. Unnecessary keywording is frowned upon because it breaks any script that happens to use the keyword as a name, thus creating backward incompatibilities. And I'm willing to bet that there are plenty of scripts out there that use "dec" as a name for Decimal objects. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
